Pollution and the Death of Man
For some reason, I read this book for a theological essay I had to write, but for the life of me, I can't remember the essay and how this book was related at all.
This was the shortest book in this volume and it deals with how Christians are to relate to the world around us. Christians should not be active on the issue of pollution on this planet. This is not because we are pantheist and believe that the world is God like some eastern religions (and extreme green views out there). While those groups may actually care better for the environment than some Christians, their actions come from a flawed view of things.
After looking at some flawed view of the world, the environment and creation Schaeffer then puts forward a Christian view of things. He argues that people have the same origins as everything else (ie all created) but people stand above or stand out from everything in else in creation as we are stewards of creation. We are also to be in favour of the real material world as Jesus entered into this world with a real material body and in the resurrected future we will all get a new real material body. The hippies who wanted to get close to nature were onto something, but it wasn't big enough, it was mostly pragmatic. Instead, we should care for the environment because it is God's. God made it and called it good, we should look after it. We should treat all objects in nature, trees, rocks etc as good, intrinsically and not just pragmatically.
Schaeffer wanted the church be part of a "pilot plan" to show the world how people are to restore and look after the earth. This course of action may even give the church a hearing on how we are on about not just restoring man to nature, but also man to man; man to himself and man to God. Schaeffer was also firm on the fact that it is wrong to take advantage of the environment based on money or time. The Church should be ensuring/protesting large environment works that do things quicker for money at the expense of the long term environmental impact. It did make me wonder where the church's voice is today on these issues, as besides refugees, the church tends not to agree with the Greens on very much.
One standout story from this book was when Scheffer had a Christian facility overlooking a river or a lake and on the other side was a hippy commune. Their view was very nice and as the hippies built their structures in line with natural things around them. Once day Scheffer crossed that body of water and talked to the hippies and while he was doing that he saw their view and saw that the Christian facility was ugly and broke the aesthetics of the view from this side. He thought that was a bad witness and sought to change that.
I am not sure what decade this book was written, but I have a feeling it was coming out of the 60's when the hippies were big and so also modern pragmatics - where things function was more important than their form. This movement lead to a whole bunch of bleak concrete buildings, and things in the environment were only considered based on their utility. Of cause, we have moved on from here as today with climate warnings we would never rip open or take advantage of the environment, doing greater damage to the planet for the sake of time or money...
How Should We Then Live?
This book was like a few of Schaeffer's previous ones as he traced the history of thought in the West. However, unlike his other books, instead of starting from Leonardo da Vinci he started back in Ancient Rome. When dealing with our current situation the focus was a little more political and how the government affects the freedoms of the individual. With the removal of absolutes, almost anything is up for grabs. Society or government then becomes that absolut so can legally make whatever laws it wants. There is no moral court higher. Communism gets a bit of a look in as a bad example of how the freedom of the individual is treated. Schaeffer was concerned about the influence of social sciences in how we make social laws. The scientific elite are giving a platform that helps make or shape (moral) laws that will affect everyone even though science generally was amoral.
There was also a bit on the media and how there is the possibility of an elite group who control the news stories and frame what is presented to manipulate the general public. I found this quite interesting in the age of "fake news". Back then there wasn't the Internet, so even the idea of a decentralised option of independent voices being accessible to millions wasn't possible back then. Of cause today there is an uproar of social media companies banning certain people for what they post, the Internet is at least a tool to help fight the media manipulation that he was worried about. I guess the new problem today is that we can just consume our own chosen media and by choice live in our own echo chamber consuming and enjoying what has presented to us framed in the perspective that we like. Today, we now choose our own propaganda
I found the trend that Schaeffer was pointing quite interesting: with the breakdown of moral absolutes, we will move towards an authoritarian government. As the Christian base is slowly eroding over time, Schaeffer saw that the individual freedoms that people in the West enjoy will slowly dimish. But he was not pessimistic. Christianity started in the minority and was still able to influence society. The principal of there being absolutes and knowing we can discover them started modern science which has impacted the world. Lives have been saved and changed from seeing the morals, values, meaning and truth lived out in believers. That is what is needed again.
Whatever Happened to the Human Race?
This book was co-written with a medical doctor and was all about the ethical problems that medical science poses with respect to human life. This deals with the issues of abortion and euthanasia and the possibility of infanticide, assuming the arguments of abortion and euthanasia are kept consistent. In America, as soon as you touch the issue of abortion it becomes political and lines get drawn real fast. Schaeffer doesn't seem to mind about that, as he fundamentally is trying to reclaim the dignity of people.
I got a bit bogged down in this book as the chapters were a bit long. There were lots of medical examples or test cases regarding the worth, cost and effort in helping people stay alive, and the murkiness (or really clarity) to what is sometimes seen as a clear cut answer in society. There is something wrong with a nation/culture when people are not seen as above animals, or an individual is only deemed valuable for their utility or their worth only depends if someone else likes them.
The better parts of this book come from chapter four onwards, where I assume Schaeffer takes the reigns and looks at the underlying assumptions of society and traces where these ideas come from. Materialist humanism can not give us an answer as to why things exist or how life began. Since the enlightenment reason is no longer king, reason is dead. The whole progression towards existentialism has lefts us in the dark, either with blind hope or realistic despair. The Bible, on the other hand, is not to be believed as a leap of faith but is to be considered an alternative to be looked at and tested to see if it aligns with reality. Beliving that God has spoken and revealed objective truths to us, helps us ground our reasoning in truth that is knowable and we see that humans are not just part of the machine, not just part of the uncaring universe. We are better than that. Humans are made in the image of God and so each life is sacred. This will help redeem the human race from the culture of death and bleakness. The book ends with a challenge for Christians to go out into the public space and advocate for this truth.
A Christian Manifesto
Where the previous book was more aimed at the medical community and issues revolving around that, this book has a bit of focus on the legal community and individual citizens use of their rights in the public space. Schaeffer saw this book as a response to, or a replacement of the Communist Manifesto and Humanist Manifesto I and II. The church has been asleep in its role to be salt and light to the world and so had not be very vocal in the public space. I don't know enough of history to say one way or another, but I do wonder if this book helped with the rise in the "Religious Right" in America and the close association of Republicans with Christians around the 70's.
One idea that stood out in this book was the idea of Lex Rex (the law is king) from Samuel Rutherford. This is the idea of distributive justice and pushed against the opposite idea that the King is Law. There are absolute standards that even the King should be accountable to. But today, with the jettison of absolutes, the law seems to be about what the majority says. We pass things based on a general consensus, not on some absolute standard. (Of cause in our country would never put moral laws up for a (non-binding, voluntary) vote). In principle, this idea of majority rule, that popularity is king, may cause problems for the minority. How do we look after those whose voice is silenced (or anything else is threatened) by the majority? By what standard can we then appeal to if there is no higher lawgiver than the people?
Schaeffer saw that the freedoms that every American has is an open window for the Church today. The Church is allowed and can and should petition the government for causes that can help the down and out. As one of the books above said, Schaeffer saw that once absolutes standards in morality in culture has been removed, there is a tendency for authoritarian governments to be the replacement. The Christian worldview can push against this authoritarianism and give a justification for the freedoms people experience in the West. This will benefit all people.
The last few chapters of this book leans again on Samual Rutherford and his idea of civil disobedience. When is it right to protest against the Government? Should force be used? In the case of the individual before force is considered it should be worked out if you can use normal legal means to resolve your problems, or if possible can you flee away from tyranny. Even then, force should then be used only in self-defence. Non-violent and legal means should be the primary (only) way we should be going about bringing change in the West. Some may protest that Christians shouldn't wield the legal means and lobbying methods that others do on the government to bring about change, but Schaeffer just saw that thinking as an "absolutely utopian" idea in a fallen world. Christians should make their voice heard to the rulers above them, as they are still citizens of their own country. While Christian sees that God is above caesar, the government still has a delegated authority from God. The church should find ways to in society to live a peaceable life and to help bring about freedom for all.
Reading all of these volumes has been a long ride, but I have appreciated getting to know Schaeffer. I am glad someone gave me this compleat set. I may take a short break from trying to read everything one person has written - I have far too many books on my to-read pile next to my bed.
The rest of the volumes in this series:
Volume 1: Philosophy and Culture
Volume 2: The Bible as Truth
Volume 3: Spirituality
Volume 4: The Church
0 comments:
Post a Comment